ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 28, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: May 23, 2025
SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider an appeal to General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 2 4- 0372 (Ward 7)
LAV//Pinnacle Consulting & Engineering, representing the Fred Giminiani 2008 Living Trust, is proposing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on approximately 2.63 acres generally located at the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street. The request includes:
1. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from GC (General Commercial) and SR (Suburban Residential) to GC (General Commercial).
3. Zone Change to change zone classification from C-2 (Regional Commercial Zone) and A (Agriculture Zone) to C-2 (Regional Commercial Zone).
Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), submitted an appeal to the Planning Commission's approval of the request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
BACKGROUND:
The project is a request to change the land use entitlements from general commercial, suburban residential, regional commercial and agriculture to general commerc ial and regional commercial on approximately 1.19 acres, which are a portion of an existing 2.63 acre parcel. Specifically, the applicant requests:
1. Resolution adopting a MND ( Mitigated Negative Declaration ) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from GC (General Commercial) and SR (Suburban Residential) to GC (General Commercial).
3. Zone Change to change zone classification from C-2 (Regional Commercial Zone) and A (Agriculture Zone) to C-2 (Regional Commercial Zone).
Project Summary
The proposed project seeks the above approvals for purposes of having a land use designation and zoning to that is consistent within the parcel itself and with adjacent parcels. The existing parcel includes multiple land use and zoning designations, of which commercial designations cover the majority. This General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (GPA/ZC) application proposes to eliminate the split designations to result in a
2.63-acre, C-2 commercial parcel. Currently, there are no plans to develop the project site. All future
developments will be analyzed for municipal and CEQA compliance which, among other things, will require sewer and drainage studies in order to retain drainage on site.
Site History
January 28, 1998 -– City Council approved the pre-zoning of the project site and other parcels within the City’s sphere of influence as part of the 2010 Bakersfield General Plan update (Ordinance 3819).
November 21, 2017 - The project site, as one of six parcels, was annexed into the City of Bakersfield as part of Annexation No. 654 (Michele No. 1) (City Council Resolution No. 003 -17) (LAFCo Resolution No. 17-12).
January 28, 2025 - Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), submitted comments stating the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was insufficient and opposing the General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 24-0372. (attached)
March 20, 2025 – Braun Gosling, A Law Corporation and legal counsel for the Applicant, responded to the Lozeau Drury LLP comment letter during public comments at the Planning Commission hearing.
March 26, 2025- Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), submitted a 168 -page response appealing Planning Commission’s decision on General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 24-0372, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration. (attached)
May 2, 2025- Braun Gosling, A Law Corporation on behalf of Applicant responded to the Lozeau Drury LLP appeal indicating that a) the appellant has failed to state their interest or relationship to the project as required under the Bakersfi eld Municipal Code, and b) the request for an EIR under CEQA is misplaced. (attached)
Environmental Review and Determination
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Staff prepared an initial study to review the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study was based on the Biological Resources Study only.
The Initial Study determined that compliance with recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a less- than- significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA. The MND was circulated for a 30 -day public and agency review period f rom December 30,2024 to January 28, 2025 (SCH No. 2024121189).
Comments Received. In addition to the comments mentioned above, the following comment was received:
1. Kern Delta Water District stated they would like to be kept informed on any development as the property boarders its Branch One Canal.
Public Notification
Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City of Bakersfield Development Services Building, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding t his public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law. Additionally, a public hearing notice was issued via email to all interested parties that submitted written comments. Signs are required as part of the public notification process and must be posted between 20 to 60 days before the public hearing date. Photographs of the posted signage and the Declaration of Posting Public Hearing Notice signed by the applicant are on file at the Planning Division.
Planning Commission Action
The project was considered by Planning Commission on March 20, 2025. A representative of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) was present to oppose the project. Doug Gosling, legal counsel for the Applicant, was also present at the hearing. Th e project was scheduled for consent public hearings but was pulled for public comments. After hearing testimonies from both representatives, the Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the project and recommended approval to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s findings are contained in Resolution Nos. 18 -25, 19-25, and 20-
25. On March 26, 2025, an appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project was filed by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environme ntal Responsibility (“SAFER”). The appeal states that the City failed to prepare an Environmental Impact report as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and on the project’s impact on local health, safety, and the environment. Pursua nt to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.64.090(A) and (B), an appeal is to be submitted in writing to the City Council within 10 calendar days after the Planning Commission decision.
The appeal shall include the appellant’s interest in or the relationship to the subject property, the decision or action appealed, and the specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision or action from which the appeal is taken should not be upheld. A decision of the City Council shall be final and conclusive.
In the final analysis due to its overarching consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and its consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to commercial development, as described above. Any future development proposed on the project site will be required to undergo a Site Plan Review, ensuring consistency with City development standards as put forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable goals and policies contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element.
City Council Options
City Council has the following options regarding this appeal request:
Deny the Appeal. If the City Council were to deny the appeal, the General Plan land u se designation would be amended to GC (General Commercial); and the first reading of the ordinance would occur as part of this consideration to change the zone to C -2 (Regional Commercial). The Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for this proje ct would also be approved.
Uphold the Appeal. If the City Council were to uphold the appeal, the project site would retain its current General Plan land use designations and zone classifications for development of residential, commercial, and agricultural uses. The applicant would have exhausted all appeals, and this application would be closed.
Uphold the Appeal and Impose a more Restrictive Zone District.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The action to deny the appeal and uphold Planning Commission Action, will not have an adverse impact on the General Fund. If this site develops to its full land use economic potential it will have a positive impact on generating revenue for the City General Fund.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Community Character & Quality of Life
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolutions
2. Attachment A: Map Set
a. GPA/ZC Aerial
b. GPA/ZC Zone Classification
c. GPA/ZC General Plan Designation
3. Attachment B: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments
4. Attachment C: Planning Commission Resolutions
a. Adopt MND with Attachments
b. Approve GPA with Attachments
c. Approve ZC with Attachments
5. Attachment D: Planning Commission Staff Report
6. Attachment E: MESA Biological Study
7. Attachment F: Appeal Letter Lozeau Drury, March 26, 2025 including Comment Letter, Jan. 28, 2025
8. Attachment G: Appeal Response Letter: Braun Gosling, May 2, 2025